Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Again, there is no special legal risk to hiring him. He has never been found guilty of anything, either civilly or criminally (and has never been indicted, arrested or tried) and he was not fired for cause.

If anything ( and I mean ANYTHING) there is an argument that a future employer would owe a special duty to do another layer of background check. However, given that Briles was not fired for cause, and Baylor has provided a letter stating in plain terms that he did not ever knowingly contact an alleged victim or impede an investigation, there is a neat defense to any claim for negligence based on that letter alone (you know, the letter KS keeps insisting says nothing. It says plenty).

Allegations in a lawsuit which is dismissed before any scheduling or document production, or a description from an oral presentation from Pepper Hamalton would never be admitted as any type of evidence, the former is simply not allowed and the latter is hearsay, unless a Pepper Hamilton lawyer testified to lay the groundwork, which they never would.

Correct. The only risk is from online SJWs ignorant of what actually happened tweeting their outrage.

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Again, there is no special legal risk to hiring him. He has never been found guilty of anything, either civilly or criminally (and has never been indicted, arrested or tried) and he was not fired for cause.

If anything ( and I mean ANYTHING) there is an argument that a future employer would owe a special duty to do another layer of background check. However, given that Briles was not fired for cause, and Baylor has provided a letter stating in plain terms that he did not ever knowingly contact an alleged victim or impede an investigation, there is a neat defense to any claim for negligence based on that letter alone (you know, the letter KS keeps insisting says nothing. It says plenty).

Allegations in a lawsuit which is dismissed before any scheduling or document production, or a description from an oral presentation from Pepper Hamalton would never be admitted as any type of evidence, the former is simply not allowed and the latter is hearsay, unless a Pepper Hamilton lawyer testified to lay the groundwork, which they never would.

---

Game. Set. Match. Oh, and checkmate.

In my mind, the Briles issue is closed. He'll be 65 soon. No one is going to let him have a big hand in their program and no university with a female board member is going to allow him on their campus.

What will happen next is:
-His former coaches will be less afraid of retribution in speaking out. You'll learn some interesting things.

-There will be a change in the media treatment of sexual assault on college campuses. The tabloids like ESPN will be forced to discuss it with more respect or viewers will turn on them.

But what's not dead is the involvement of Regents Buddy Jones, Darry Stone and Richard Willis.

Until we get to the heard of their involvement in this scandal and their continued relationship with the board, there won't be healing at Baylor University.

Legal liability is an extremely low bar for hiring a high profile position like head football coach.

303Bear said:

---

Again, there is no special legal risk to hiring him. He has never been found guilty of anything, either civilly or criminally (and has never been indicted, arrested or tried) and he was not fired for cause.

---

You're putting words in the mouths of people that make decisions. How about asking them?

No one gives a **** about whether he was convicted, not convicted, arraigned, indicted, sentenced or whatever it is you think is legal cause for anything. You're arguing an utterly irrelevant point because the conclusion is he still won''t get hired.

Briles is guilty of one thing and that's being a moron. You don't write the things he's written in text and get paid millions. Maybe a 100k, but not millions.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

And don't worry about trying to change the opinion of anyone at Baylor, try his former employer at the Univerity of Houston.

They aren't interested either.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

bearlyafarmer said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Please produce even a shred of hard evidence to support your statements re Briles' reputation. If you cannot, or will not, please refrain from making such statements. Allegations, as we have learned throughout this debacle, do not constitute evidence. Thank you.

---

Of course.

Assuming that the hypothetical lawsuit made it to litigation, which it would not since the university would settle, the civil attorneys would subpoena a member of the BOR or someone similar as a witness who would state the same thing that the BOR provided in the response to during the Shillinglaw case in regard to why Baylor fired Briles. That BOR response is publicly available to anyone who cares to read it, and, before it is said otherwise, testimony -is- evidence by its very definition. Given that the BOR made those statements in a separate case, there is no reason to believe that they would not share the same information in any subsequent case.

Anyone who incorrectly claims that testimony is not evidence is looking for something other than evidence.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

You'll have to wait because I'll never out my sources in a public forum. I never stated Briles did nothing wrong. I'm not here defending Briles. You BOFR cucks need to get over him. I'll continue to ask for accountability for failing to provide oversight of regulatory programs and for the ineptitude of the entire BOFR for failing to ask even the simplest of questions as to how the university they direct is in compliance. If they are there to fundraise and meet 6 times per year, then let them do that because they obviously haven't sense enough or the care enough to provide oversight and direction if it's all about the money for them.

If the BOFR had reason to fire Briles like you state, then they had cause. If they had cause, then why pay him?

---

So... nothing, then?

Gotcha.

If I can't explain to you why you wouldn't pay someone you're thankful to, to shut up and go away, then... well... that pretty much sums up this circle jerk, hero worship cult you've been working so hard to maintain.

I don't think Briles did anything criminal. I JUST think he ****ed up and LITERALLY HID THINGS FROM THE UNIVERSITY. THERE IS ****ING PROOF OF THIS THAT NO ONE OF YOU BRILES-LOVING *******S CAN EXPLAIN. THERE IS PROOF HE WAS HIDING MISCONDUCT FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

But hey, you have a source. Good luck with that.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Please produce even a shred of hard evidence to support your statements re Briles' reputation. If you cannot, or will not, please refrain from making such statements. Allegations, as we have learned throughout this debacle, do not constitute evidence. Thank you.

---

Of course.

Assuming that the hypothetical lawsuit made it to litigation, which it would not since the university would settle, the civil attorneys would subpoena a member of the BOR or someone similar as a witness who would state the same thing that the BOR provided in the response to during the Shillinglaw case in regard to why Baylor fired Briles. That BOR response is publicly available to anyone who cares to read it, and, before it is said otherwise, testimony -is- evidence by its very definition. Given that the BOR made those statements in a separate case, there is no reason to believe that they would not share the same information in any subsequent case.

Anyone who incorrectly claims that testimony is not evidence is looking for something other than evidence.

---

No evidence produced. Noted.

bearlyafarmer said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Funny, nowhere except for a couple of old TexAgs and Shaggy threads is anything nefarious in CABs past mentioned. Google turns up nothing of note, and UH has not any sanctions since the 1980's.

But, clearly everyone knows he is the worst man to walk the earth in decades.

---

It's difficult to tell if this response was serious or not.

---

Misread your previous post, thought you meant Baylor's hire.

But there isn't really any difference, man has never bee indicted, arrested or tried, and has been non-suited or dismissed from every suit that named him.

Legally, he has never done anything.

Thus, no liability for any future employer (if any).

---

From the perspective of a university, it does not matter if he was indicted, arrested, or tried.

In a hypothetical situation where a university hires Briles something occurs under Briles (not a rape, but any sort of reporting issue or staff interference issue), evidence would be able to be introduced to show why Briles was terminated from his prior employer in a lawsuit for the negligent hiring of Birles. Of course, it would never make it that far because the university would almost certainly settle, but it would settle for a larger amount that they would have if they had not hired Briles given Briles' reputation.

---

That's not really how negligent hiring works, but if it makes you feel better to think so, be my guest.

The PR issues may keep a University away, but fans at several schools have already floated his name. Sports fans have short memories when they see the chance for a better outcome for their team.

---

Maybe, but fan bases are going to say his name forever, but they aren't the ones that have to place their reputations/jobs on the line to hire to him.

Briles has a reputation for not reporting and allowing his staff to not report and to have improper contact with victims at a minimum, and, if something goes unreported by him or his staff, or, in the alternative, if he or his staff has improper contact with the alleged victim, the university's liability is there.

---

Please produce even a shred of hard evidence to support your statements re Briles' reputation. If you cannot, or will not, please refrain from making such statements. Allegations, as we have learned throughout this debacle, do not constitute evidence. Thank you.

---

Of course.

Assuming that the hypothetical lawsuit made it to litigation, which it would not since the university would settle, the civil attorneys would subpoena a member of the BOR or someone similar as a witness who would state the same thing that the BOR provided in the response to during the Shillinglaw case in regard to why Baylor fired Briles. That BOR response is publicly available to anyone who cares to read it, and, before it is said otherwise, testimony -is- evidence by its very definition. Given that the BOR made those statements in a separate case, there is no reason to believe that they would not share the same information in any subsequent case.

Anyone who incorrectly claims that testimony is not evidence is looking for something other than evidence.

---

No evidence produced. Noted.

---

The final sentence of my prior quoted post applies here.

The ledge on the Alico is getting a little less crowded as I have talked more and more robe clingers off the plank. I'm offering either Owl tees or Sun Devil tees for the jumps.

I need help though. I can find Sun Devil tees but the only Owl tees have the sleeves cut off, are covered in vomit, fish guts and motor oil. There is a hint of meth inbedded in some but it could fetch a higher paying customer who will undoubtedley get to believing they are diving into the beautitul Florida ocean!

The problem is what happens when there is a rape at some future stop. With his history the payouts would be many times what Baylor is paying now.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Again, there is no special legal risk to hiring him. He has never been found guilty of anything, either civilly or criminally (and has never been indicted, arrested or tried) and he was not fired for cause.

---

You're putting words in the mouths of people that make decisions. How about asking them?

No one gives a **** about whether he was convicted, not convicted, arraigned, indicted, sentenced or whatever it is you think is legal cause for anything. You're arguing an utterly irrelevant point because the conclusion is he still won''t get hired.

Briles is guilty of one thing and that's being a moron. You don't write the things he's written in text and get paid millions. Maybe a 100k, but not millions.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

And don't worry about trying to change the opinion of anyone at Baylor, try his former employer at the Univerity of Houston.

They aren't interested either.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

---

For someone claiming I put words in others mouths, you sure just put a lot in mine.

My point, and my only point, which I though I had made abundantly clear, but lets try again, is that any claim there is a liability risk (which several people have made or appeared to have made) is false.

And one more time, I do not care whether he coaches again, and I am not really sure why so many here on both sides seem to.

Thee University said:

---

The ledge on the Alico is getting a little less crowded as I have talked more and more robe clingers off the plank. I'm offering either Owl tees or Sun Devil tees for the jumps.

I need help though. I can find Sun Devil tees but the only Owl tees have the sleeves cut off, are covered in vomit, fish guts and motor oil. There is a hint of meth inbedded in some but it could fetch a higher paying customer who will undoubtedley get to believing they are diving into the beautitul Florida ocean!

---

Inbedded? Yer old butt outta be learning how to spell embedded. Baylor degree huh? They let you in with a GED? Check yer lithium scrip. I think it's low. Maybe if you do the jumping you'll hit yer ol noggin and wake up intelligent.

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

L


Again, there is no special legal risk to hiring him. He has never been found guilty of anything, either civilly or criminally (and has never been indicted, arrested or tried) and he was not fired for cause.

---

You're putting words in the mouths of people that make decisions. How about asking them?

No one gives a **** about whether he was convicted, not convicted, arraigned, indicted, sentenced or whatever it is you think is legal cause for anything. You're arguing an utterly irrelevant point because the conclusion is he still won''t get hired.

Briles is guilty of one thing and that's being a moron. You don't write the things he's written in text and get paid millions. Maybe a 100k, but not millions.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

And don't worry about trying to change the opinion of anyone at Baylor, try his former employer at the Univerity of Houston.

They aren't interested either.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/houston-sends-clear-message-about-art-briles-coaching-future-in-denying-interview/

---

My point, and my only point, which I though I had made abundantly clear, but lets try again, is that any claim there is a liability risk (which several people have made or appeared to have made) is false.

---

Oh, so that whole judicial affairs thing is a dog and pony show.


Eh, I wouldn't bet my life on that. Nor would I buy one bit of someone making that claim also saying they aren't on a Briles crusade.

Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?

Their is an aggressive PR firm on the top floor of the Alico building.
They ll advise you how to land.


The late great Monte Hall and his audience would scream at ole Junior Samples to trade that "recommendations letter" Baylor wrote for the two jack mules and **** pile on the set.
Playing PR games while needing the opponent's help is so strange.

"Do it Junior! Make the deal."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

As to your first reply, we can agree to disagree on this, but I do think the board's handling of the situation did contribute to the PR firestorm. Literally every football fan I've talked to or seen post anywhere online thinks that Briles should be in jail. I've seen people on the internet openly talk about how they think he deserves a violent death. I've had a few question why Baylor is still allowed to operate. Maybe you don't think there is anything that they could have done to avoid that being the opinion of random people. I don't agree. They could have been far more specific in the reasoning behind the firing. They left more than plenty of room for random fans to assume that Briles was actively and knowingly harboring rapists and that is exactly what random fans think happened.

As to this post-

I just can't take any bragging about getting the recommendations in place seriously at all. The board oversaw all of this. If they didn't know that Starr wasn't keeping up with Title IX well enough, shame on them. There are more than 30 of them. There was an athletics compliance sub-committee. If we had a sub-committee on athletics issues and none on Title IX compliance and campus security, shame on our board. Surely some of the more than 30 of them had heard of the 100+ schools with Title IX problems before ours came up. If none of them had, shame on them for not keeping up with university news. Don't brag to me about trying to put out a fire that started on your watch.

Our school is poorly run. I won't be sending my kids there. I grew up on the campus. I wish I could have more faith in the people who run the school. I have no reason to think that I should.

---

I'm sorry, but this is sort of ridiculous. If your BOR is super up-to-date on Title IX prior to 2015, it's becauee you've ****ed up HUGE.

It's amazing that people can give Briles a walk on Title IX responsibities, but blame 30 fundraisers that meet 6 times a year for not knowing intricate details on a law their own University President refused to engage in.

Title IX and OCR worry mostly about being "put on notice" and what you do after that point. When the BOR was finally made aware of the details, they acted.

---

The letter went out in 2011. 55 schools were announced as being under investigation in 2014.

How many industries have major compliance changes that the governing board is unaware of 4-5 years after the changes are announced?

This might well be a surprise to you, but I do think that some would guess that a football coach would know less about university compliance issues than the people in charge of governing the university.

If they are only fundraisers and aren't interested in helping run the school, get them out. We need people asking the right questions. If they only ask the right questions after the school is in a firestorm, they serve no purpose and aren't worthy of getting the fancy title they love to brag about in the good times.

Your middle paragraph just actually makes me more worried about the board. Shouldn't the board be all over it if the university president is openly ignoring a federal regulation relating to students being raped? If they aren't, why in the world are they there? Were they just thinking 'Oh well Ken is just ignoring the regs about rape, so I guess don't ask any questions there.'?

Last edit on this post - the number of people I have seen trying to say the board isn't at fault for anything that happened because they didn't actually didn't do anything blows my mind. I'm relatively young, but I've never heard anyone use the excuse 'I couldn't have done a bad job, because I wasn't doing the job at all.' outside of people saying that here for the board.

---

This is revisionist history and hindsight 20/20 viewing in its breathtaking finest.

First off, most of this "fun stuff" started in 2014. The first major DCL came out in 2011. However, it's been an iterative process ever since, with guidance being honed, tweaked, clarified nearly yearly. Also, most people have no idea how many guidance/mandates colleges and Universities get on a day-to-day basis. It's a huge part of the economy. That doesn't dismiss the need to pay attention, but it should help someone understand that there's a whole ecosystem out there. Universities are constantly putting out fires and juggling voices.

For instance, Baylor got hammered for not having a full-time, dedicated, professional Title IX Coordinator by the press. However, I happened to know that the two largest University Systems in the state didn't either at that time on their flagship campuses.

I'm just saying that 3 years is a blink of the eye. If you sincerely expect your BOR to have more than a working knowledge of Title IX structures in 2014-2015, you have no idea how a BOR works. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic.

And for the 9 BILLIONTH time, Art Briles didn't get fired because he wasn't filling out the proper paperwork. He got fired because he was actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself. There IS proof of this. He literally texted others about "keeping this away from Judicial Affairs." I'm sorry, but his goose was ****ing cooked when he wrote that. And that's just ONE time that we know of. For every text you've sent, you've had dozens of conversations in person or on the phone.

Secondly, there's a saying in Higher Education: "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved." Regents have a purpose. They're there for guidance and oversight from a 60,000 ft view. If they're honestly getting involved on an inter-department basis, its because something is ****ed up. If they're asking questions about compliance, it's almost always already too late. They're not experts in education (usually). If they're counting reams of paper or asking about a student event, something is wrong.

But still, it's amazing that someone would blame a BOR (which meets like 3-6 times a year and rotates membership) for not having in-depth knowledge of a new guidance from OCR, but will give a walk to someone who is actually working full time with students. That's ****ing bonkers.

---

Nobody that I know of is blaming the BOFR for not knowing the details and intricacies of T9 and how it's implemented on campus. That's the job of the executive function. My disgust is from the BOFR's function of failing to provide proper oversight to insure that regulatory matters are handled in such a manner to insure compliance. The failure to accept any kind of responsibility or be held accountable for a university-wide systemic failure is unconscionable. We have business "leaders" on the BOFR that receive regulatory status updates all the time related to their businesses whether it be in healthcare, oil and gas, product safety, etc. Heck, I give monthly regulatory updates and their applicability to our business at least quarterly to insure we are operating within current and proposed regulation. How they didn't have a simple regulatory update or ask the right questions is mind boggling seeing as how they do it outside of their BOFR responsibilities. And the harm they've caused to victims and the Baylor brand by that failure is staggering.

---

Where did the BOR avoid taking responsibility? It's an unpaid position that rotates in and out. What were they going to do? Seriously?

Their job was to take care of business. They were the ones who hired Pepper Hamilton to find out what was actually going on (it was clear there was a lot of lying going on). They were the ones who got the report. They were the ones who mandated the changes be made. And they're also the ones who made changes in their own structure as well recommended by the report.

They're the perfect bogey-man for y'all desperate to slide any blame off of Briles because they're a group of 30+ people. But have you ever noticed that when you ask about this specific regent or that one, everyone thinks they're a "great person"? It's easy to de-individuate and hate a group of people without one face, but when you actually have to use examples it gets harder.

The fact is that there are two types of people on the outside of this: those who can deal with the fact that there is information they're not going to get and move on; and those that can't.

But people who are holding on to this idea that something was afoul and the BOR alone is to blame, are deluding themselves.

---

Last I saw nobody from the BOFR resigned out of even embarrassment and one (the sex toy salesman) even received an additional year on the board for legal cover for what happened under his "leadership". There's much blame to go around; Briles included, but blaming Briles and the executive function for their failures does not absolve the BOFR of its failure. You BOFR rape apologists need to get off the Briles blame train because that ride ended last year. Do you not see that but for proper oversight of T9 implementation and the board structure, we likely wouldn't be in this mess? Controls would have been implemented. I'm happy those have been remedied after years of neglect, but not all parties have accepted accountability at this point.

---

Then you need to vary your reading materual. There were resignations just over a year ago.

BBL does higher education administration for a living. Boards know what administrators tell them and what hits the media. If it hits the media, somebody is toast.

---

Which reading materials do I need to vary or update? We had 2 regents leave nearly immediately in 2016 to pursue other opportunities because they wanted nothing to do with our brand and neither accepted any kind of accountability . Willis the sex toy salesman recently left but only after getting what was an unprecedented 4th term because he needed the legal protection for what happened under his "leadership". He certainly didn't have enough shame to resign. And don't count Turner's expired term as a resignation because she was not re-elected by alumni then was quickly reappointed to the board (I don't hold her responsible since she didn't start on the BOFR until 7/2016). We cannot have a culture change until those on the BOFR from 2011 to 2015 are gone. They directed executive changes to change the culture; therefore, they need to be held to the same standard. The hypocrisy is sickening.

---

First off, I'm proud of you for finally educating yourself via google. Good for you, homey.

Secondly, if you think those regents resigned to separate themselves from our brand, you're ****ing stupid. Like, REALLY stupid. Wright has served as a Regent twice. Dr. Howard's resignation was anything buy standard. His spokesperson said he was still on the BOR well after his appointment began, but sources say he actually resigned weeks earlier.

It's not uncommon at all for people in their current positions to stay in their Regent role.

But go ahead. Live in your own little world. It's becoming increasingly clear that your ignorance and lack of expertise in this arena allow you to rationalize whatever you want to believe.

---

I don't have to use google. I've followed the BOFR and their henchmen's actions for years. Your response is a prime demonstration of the incestuous and insulated nature of the BOFR and why a culture change is long past due. An eerie coincidence is that I received an email about a year ago from a regent in the same condescending tone as your response. He mistakenly thought he was forwarding his thoughts to a few other regents but instead it came back to me. It appears I've hit a nerve with you, too. I guess that honesty, integrity, and accountability don't run in your circles either.

---

You serious? Someone was condescending to you? Someone with knowledge on the subject was annoyed with your amazingly uninformed -yet strangely confident- opinion?

Reminds me of a friend of mine who talks all the time about being a flat-earther. Great guy, but he has no self-control. He went to a job interview and the topic came up. He couldn't believe that he didn't get the job! He told me how shocked he was that people were always talking down to him and being condescending.

Sometimes when you believe stupid ****, like a conspiracy theory about the BOR firing the most successful coach in the University's history and risking the University's reputation in the process for anything other than the information they saw, people will question your intelligence.

---

All I did was state that the BOFR needed to be held accountable for failing to provide any kind of oversight for several years and you respond again demonstrating the exact attitude and mentality as what occurred in those BOFR meetings. Have fun in your quarterly BOFR circle jerks. Some of us know the truth.

---

Okay. What evidence do you have that the BOR did this out of malicious intent? What evidence do you have that Briles did nothing wrong? (Reminder, seeing as how there are records of him personally trying to hide things from Judicial Affairs, that's going to be really hard for you to do)

I want actual evidence that the BOR had NO reason to do any of this. Since you supposedly "know the truth" I won't have to wait long.

---

You'll have to wait because I'll never out my sources in a public forum. I never stated Briles did nothing wrong. I'm not here defending Briles. You BOFR cucks need to get over him. I'll continue to ask for accountability for failing to provide oversight of regulatory programs and for the ineptitude of the entire BOFR for failing to ask even the simplest of questions as to how the university they direct is in compliance. If they are there to fundraise and meet 6 times per year, then let them do that because they obviously haven't sense enough or the care enough to provide oversight and direction if it's all about the money for them.

If the BOFR had reason to fire Briles like you state, then they had cause. If they had cause, then why pay him?

---

So... nothing, then?

Gotcha.

If I can't explain to you why you wouldn't pay someone you're thankful to, to shut up and go away, then... well... that pretty much sums up this circle jerk, hero worship cult you've been working so hard to maintain.

I don't think Briles did anything criminal. I JUST think he ****ed up and LITERALLY HID THINGS FROM THE UNIVERSITY. THERE IS ****ING PROOF OF THIS THAT NO ONE OF YOU BRILES-LOVING *******S CAN EXPLAIN. THERE IS PROOF HE WAS HIDING MISCONDUCT FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

But hey, you have a source. Good luck with that.

---

Hahaha! You BOFR cucks always get caught in your circle of lies. Briles will always be the excuse for your failures. All I did was want accountability for the BOFR's lack of oversight and you go all Briles Briles Briles. So your boys paid him to thank him because they had no cause, yet you state that Briles was, "actively subverting the Universities apparatus to police itself." Ok. Fine. Makes as much sense as having a dildo salesman or a bank wrecker as chairman of the BOFR but ok. Hope your slack jaw tightens up and you feel better using all caps in your response. Adios mofo.

MOFO should be in caps. Just sayin'

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

My point, and my only point, which I though I had made abundantly clear, but lets try again, is that any claim there is a liability risk (which several people have made or appeared to have made) is false.

---

Oh, so that whole judicial affairs thing is a dog and pony show.


Eh, I wouldn't bet my life on that. Nor would I buy one bit of someone making that claim also saying they aren't on a Briles crusade.

Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?

---

You keep trying to conflate a non-legal process with a legal process.

There is no special legal risk to a hire. I never said, nor will I ever say that there is no PR risk.

Briles was unhireable in the last 18 months, and likely remains so now. That does not mean he always will be.

I am not going to rehash everything I have said, but in the limited context of legal risk, there simply is no more in hiring Briles now that with any other employee. I am not sure why that upsets some here so much, but the law is not your feelings and it is not a judicial affairs process at a university.

You call me a cuck while refusing to even address The proof of Briles hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

****ing coward.

There is no risk if he is hired In a position of little authority. As a head coach you would be holding a liability time bomb because of his record for previously running an out of control program.

Keyser Soze said:

---

There is no risk if he is hired In a position of little authority. As a head coach you would be holding a liability time bomb because of his record for previously running an out of control program.

---

Just not true. Why would you even say this?

xiledinok said:

---

Their is an aggressive PR firm on the top floor of the Alico building.
They ll advise you how to land.


The late great Monte Hall and his audience would scream at ole Junior Samples to trade that "recommendations letter" Baylor wrote for the two jack mules and **** pile on the set.
Playing PR games while needing the opponent's help is so strange.

"Do it Junior! Make the deal."

---

Nonsensical

Keyser Soze said:

---

There is no risk if he is hired In a position of little authority. As a head coach you would be holding a liability time bomb because of his record for previously running an out of control program.

---

No.

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

Talk to a lawyer friend
You're wrong

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

Talk to a lawyer friend
You're wrong

---

You must forgive him. He thinks Matlock is real.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You call me a cuck while refusing to even address The proof of Briles hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

****ing coward.

---

Don't have to. I already stated in a previous response to you that there's much blame to go around, Briles included. Adios.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

He didn't take less than he was owed. Just because your annuity pays you $1MM over ten years, doesn't mean the lump sum value of the annuity is $1MM. We did these calculations many times over. The value of the contract at the time of dissolution was ~$17MM.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You call me a cuck while refusing to even address The proof of Briles hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

****ing coward.

---

Are you talking about the text message "quoted" in the Shillinglaw pleading?

Robemcdo said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make

---

Okay. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'd love to see the mental acrobatics you've guys managed to put together to explain why ol' never say quit Art Briles would take less money and forfeit the ability to defend himself and tell "his" side of the story... for his kids.

I can't tell you anything about his children except that one is married to a fat coach and that Art Briles, their father, can't get a job because he's been disgraced.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You call me a cuck while refusing to even address The proof of Briles hiding things from Judicial Affairs.

****ing coward.

---

Don't have to. I already stated in a previous response to you that there's much blame to go around, Briles included. Adios.

---

But you've all said there's no evidence. Did your source not explain this to you?

The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.

He filed a lawsuit against the regents that spoke to the WSJ right as the fall season ended BEFORE the assistants secured new employment. It could not be possible for this timing to be worse. But this lawsuit was an opening to tell his side of the story and he took it despite Gray warning Cannon this will not end well for your client and the horrible timing.

He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.

If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.

---

When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make

---

Okay. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'd love to see the mental acrobatics you've guys managed to put together to explain why ol' never say quit Art Briles would take less money and forfeit the ability to defend himself and tell "his" side of the story... for his kids.

I can't tell you anything about his children except that one is married to a fat coach and that Art Briles, their father, can't get a job because he's been disgraced.

---

Children aside (and ignoring your needles ad hom - though I will say, it makes you sound a bit petulant), how did he take less money? Present value curves are a real thing, as is avoiding litigation costs.